What People Think
 |
 |
2% For, 98% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 1966, The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (23 comments ↓ | 4 wiki edits)
H.R. 1966 would amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.
()
[155 views]
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Gene
May 6, 2009, 12:07pm (report abuse)Bullying is not Trolling, there is a big difference. Focus needs to be given to actual bullying, this distracts from the issue.
Matt
May 6, 2009, 12:27pm (report abuse)this bill is pointless and shows just how badly politicians fail to understand the internet. I hope the rep that wrote this loses their job for failing to understand the scope of their position.
JR
(logged in user) May 6, 2009, 1:10pm (report abuse)Sticks and stones etc.
Why don't we teach kids to compete, be good sports win or lose, and engage in other REAL self esteem building activities rather than allow this type or ridiculous pandering to go on?
I feel badly for kids that get bullied and all physical aspects of course must remain out of bounds; but are we not losing our heads a bit here?
Rik
May 6, 2009, 2:57pm (report abuse)It looks like this law is in conflict with the first amendment.
Don't US Representatives swear to uphold the constitution, etc when they get sworn in?
Does Rep. Linda Sanchez(D-CA) really think it is a good idea to introduce such an obviously unconstitutional law?
If bullying is a problem, school children need to be taught how to handle it - after all, bullying does not happen just on the internet.
This law is not only pointless and unconstitutional, but the vague language is ripe for abusive enforcement.
Victor
May 6, 2009, 2:59pm (report abuse)To Gene:
It is not trolling for you. You forget that politicians and (especially) lawyers can twist the law ANY WAY they want. And this one is very easy to twist. Actually you do not even have to try very hard.
Michael Frankel
May 6, 2009, 4:52pm (report abuse)This bill is probably well-intentioned. However, with the road to "you know where" being paved with good intentions, this bill is extremely vague, overly broad, and makes it a crime to upset someone electronically.
If this bill were passed, I could accuse the Publisher's Clearing House of cyber-bullying because I didn't win the Sweepstakes and I got very, very upset about not winning.
I think we'd all be served better if this bill was clearer and more specific.
As of right now, it's as clear as mud and will tie up our courts with unnecessary cases.
Tashi
May 6, 2009, 5:29pm (report abuse)This sets a terrible precedent in relation to free speech. I was bullied the old fashioned way. Face to face with words (and fists), and I dealt with it, (occasionally it did lead to violence and occasionally I lost but people didn't mess with me anymore) and I think I'm better for it. This is not a solution but in fact a slippery slope to circumventing the 1st amendment.
Aaron
May 6, 2009, 8:47pm (report abuse)This seems to be a pretty clear violation of 1st Amendment rights, in addition to being neigh unto impossible to enforce in addition to being a force that is unduly coddling to youth. If a kid cannot take bullying on the internet, where the solution is often just a press of a power button away, how the hell is the kid going to survive real life bullying.
Gene
May 6, 2009, 10:43pm (report abuse)Understood Victor. To clarify my point, Freedom of Speech is paramount and cannot be limited to “nice talk”. Trolling, “mean talk”, is an opinion that needs to be treated as such.
Bullies can interfere with one’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, education, employment, etc. by physically intimidating people and that should be the focus.
Azrael
May 7, 2009, 3:44am (report abuse)"Stick and stones can break my bones by words can never harm me. " The one who said those words was never on the receiving end of a concerted campain to wreck his life.
I'm all for it, I lost jobs because an idiot has decided that my behavior was not what his church supported, throw those bastards in prison, hell, whack them, it will be regarded as a public service.
dude
May 7, 2009, 3:04pm (report abuse)The only good I can see from this POS bill is that Fred Phelps would be in jail in 20 minutes. Other than that, this is an attack on the First Amendment and needs to be stopped.
peej
May 9, 2009, 2:05pm (report abuse)So... does that mean we can report people/reporters and Youtubers who misrepresented the Teaparties and caused innocent attenders of the Teaparties stress??? Hmmm - I think it won't work that way. what do you think?
Anon
May 10, 2009, 4:26am (report abuse)My counterpoint to Azrael's comment: Under the new law, what you said would probably be criminal if you had mentioned anything more specific than "an idiot and his church".
neoconwithadfemocratface
May 10, 2009, 6:03pm (report abuse)Busted! Linda Sanchez took $8,000 from Fox News (News Corp), a 'right wing, conservative outlet! Y'know, a liberal democrat taking money from the 'O'Reilly Factor' and 'Hannity' network! Interestingly, she also took $7,500 from DirecTV which, oddly enough, is 35% owned by News Corp. Sneaky way to make political contributions, eh? If the 2 contributions are combined, they equal her #1 source of political contributors! Explains why they used two separate entities to buy her to propose this bill. There is clearly an anti-competition angle here that STINKS. This clouds any 'concern for internet safety' spin the sponsors may put on the bill!
Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver; tell me; what's the difference? Additionally, because this bill threatens constitutional sovereignty, it also threatens Indian tribal sovereignty; a possibility that needs to be addressed by her tribal supporters.
neoconwithademocratface
May 10, 2009, 6:06pm (report abuse)Corporate monopolism through a labor democrat is hypocrisy at its WORST; this must be opposed because it is deception of the voting constituency. Call your representative now to vote DOWN this bill. Why stifle working class Americans who run small blogs with this attack on the first Amendment? Speculation would suggest the bill is being pushed behind closed doors by News Corp and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. This is a bad bill all around, that will weaken the smaller voices, and benefit mainstream media. Over-generalizations that can result from bills like this mean rights suppressions for those who don't have the resources to defend themselves. Who exactly is going to define the abstract boundaries of this bill? How will enforcement be carried out against free speech?
Michael Glasser
May 11, 2009, 2:02am (report abuse)Free speech is precious but it does not give one the right to openly lie about others or to target people's personal and professional lives when they lose an online debate about computers or politics or whatever. These things happen all too often and there should be some consequence for such libel.
Not sure this bill, however, is the right approach. Needs to be more specific.
Michael Glasser
http://prescottcomputerguy.com
newfy777
May 12, 2009, 3:35pm (report abuse)the constitution?..RIP
the United States of America?..RIP
if we don't get off our collective duffs and fight this blatant tyranny..America is a carbon copy of Germany in the 30's
jbdigriz
May 13, 2009, 4:17am (report abuse)To: Matt
How can we expect most politicians to grasp the internet when they can't seem to grasp reality or simple logic? I mean, think about it. What is their answer to the great "evil" of rhetorical coercion? Yep, you guessed it. Incarceration, ie. physical coercion. Talk about PKB.
The cute thing is they expect to be rewarded for this kind of pandering hand-waving and shining of good-guy badges on other peoples' shirts. The sad thing is they probably won't be disappointed.
This country had such great promise, too.
RFlour
May 21, 2009, 7:14pm (report abuse)More steps taken to censor the internet, which is the last media outlet that is still free and un-monopolized. Is this really a surprise?
Roger-Kun
June 2, 2009, 5:45am (report abuse)I am a cyberbully. Right here! I spend the days on hacker forums, smoking pot, and causing cyber shock. Any one can use any law in the world to try and get me but that wont happen. I am using some one elsses IP.
Iamnottelling
June 18, 2009, 4:17pm (report abuse)News Corp owns Myspace too.Myspace is the most communistic and authoritarian bloging site on the net.They are all crusaders against the invisible "Right wing extremists" threat which we all are soon to be guilty of. Even the radical left is on their list of enemies. I am getting out of this country soon, not worth a damn anymore.
Iamnottelling
June 18, 2009, 4:21pm (report abuse)FOX News = Myspace = Corrupt politicians = Capitalism = Political Correctness = Communism.
Any questions???
Iamnottelling
June 18, 2009, 4:25pm (report abuse)"I am a cyberbully. Right here! I spend the days on hacker forums, smoking pot, and causing cyber shock. Any one can use any law in the world to try and get me but that wont happen. I am using some one elsses IP."
The FBI can still find you dude... Your computer has a machine ID. It is unique to the processor and the chip-set controller and hard drive.
Beware of false security.